Saturday, May 1, 2010


Friends and colleagues of mine are tired of hearing me drone on about Soviet Collectivized Agriculture, and I apologize for raising the issue again. However, the comparison between that state's view of agriculture and its place in the ruling ideology is such a close parallel to our state's ("USG") view of what it calls immigration makes it a useful tool in explaining current events and predicting further USG action.

Stalin, in his famous op-ed "Dizzy With Success" proclaimed the following in the pages of Pravda, March 2, 1930:

The Soviet government’s successes in the sphere of the collective-farm
movement are now being spoken of by everyone. Even our enemies are forced to
admit that the successes are substantial. And they really are very great.

It is a fact that by February 20 of this year 50 per cent of the
peasant farms throughout the U.S.S.R. had been collectivised. That means that by
February 20, 1930, we had overfulfilled the five-year plan of collectivisation
by more than 100 per cent.

It is a fact that on February 28 of this year the collective farms had
already succeeded in stocking upwards of 36,000,000 centners, i.e., about
220,000,000 poods, of seed for the spring sowing, which is more than 90 per cent
of the plan. It must be admitted that the accumulation of 220,000,000 poods of
seed by the collective farms alone — after the successful fulfilment of the
grain-procurement plan — is a tremendous achievement.

What does all this show?

That a radical turn of the countryside towards socialism may be
considered as already achieved. There is no need to prove that these
successes are of supreme importance for the fate of our country, for the whole
of the working class, which is the directing force of our country, and, lastly
for the Party itself. To say nothing of the direct practical results, these
successes are of immense value for the internal life of the Party itself, for
the education of our Party. They imbue our Party with a spirit of cheerfulness
and confidence in its strength. They arm the working class with confidence in
the victory of our cause. They bring forward additional millions of reserves for
our Party.

Why was Collectivized Agriculture ("CA") so important to Stalin, the Bolsheviks and the new Soviet Union? Because it was primarily an agricultural--and not industrial state--Marxist theory demanded the creation of a countryside equivalent to the urban proletariat. That is why the Soviet flag combined the hammer of that proletariat with the sickle of the to-be-created rural version: collectivized, Sovietized farmer-workers.

CA was, in fact, a failure. Everyone in the Soviet Union knew this, even Comrade Stalin. Year by year the harvest shrank--with only occasional reversals literally achieved by using hunger as a weapon in addition to the old fashioned firing squad--to the point where the leading socialist nation had to rely on the United States of America to provide its citizens with the most basic foodstuffs for life.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was not led, post-Stalin, by idiots. (Andropov, especially, was a very worldly and intelligent man, of whom it is said had to take heavy sedatives nightly in order to fall asleep, so well aware was he of his nation's true condition). They all knew that CA was a disaster. Yet, never--not even under Gorbachev--was the central decision in favor of CA reversed?


Because the ideological underpinning of the CPSU and the Soviet Union was Marxist socialism, which required no private property and a rural proletariat. To reverse that decision not only made a mockery of the huge sacrifice the Soviet people had made to impose rural socialism, but it would also be an open admission that a central tenet of socialism was a failure, a disaster. A disaster that required reversal, which could only mean to toppling of the ruling ideology and its Party.

Today (and let us ignore for now the reasons for this development and simply focus on what is), the USG's official ideology is universalist liberalism. Part and parcel of that belief system is that all people are the same, that American rights and values are universal and that the United States was, prior to the successful "revolution" of universalist liberalism sometime circa 1965, a fundamentally flawed, even criminal, nation that failed to live up to its own professed ideals.

"Immigration," which is to say, the wholesale demographic change of the United States is necessary to demonstrate that universalist liberalism is correct and is required if the U.S. is to shed and overcome once and for all its criminal and hypocritical past as a European-American nation.

As President Clinton stated at Portland State University in 1992:

More than any other nation on Earth, America has constantly drawn strength
and spirit from wave after wave of immigrants. In each generation they have
proved to be the most restless, the most adventurous, the most innovative, the
most industrious of people. Bearing different memories, honoring different
heritages, they have strengthened our economy, enriched our culture, renewed our
promise of freedom and opportunity for all.

Of course, the path has not always run smooth. Some Americans have met
each group of newcomers with suspicion and violence and discrimination. So great
was the hatred of Irish immigrants 150 years ago that they were greeted with
signs that read, "No Dogs Or Irish." So profound was the fear of Chinese in the
1880s that they were barred from entering the country. So deep was the distrust
of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe at the beginning of this century
that they were forced to take literacy tests specifically designed to keep them
out of America.

Eventually the guarantees of our Constitution and the better angels of
our nature prevailed over ignorance and insecurity, over prejudice and

But now we are being tested again - by a new wave of immigration larger
that any in a century, far more diverse than any in our history. Each year,
nearly a million people come legally to America. Today, nearly one in ten people
in America was born in another country; one in five schoolchildren is from
immigrant families. Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority
race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years there will be no
majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years
there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time.

Immigration is thus to the USG what CA was to the Soviet Union: an ideological position that cannot be changed, cannot be argued and cannot be allowed to be questioned. It is openly recognized as world-historical in scope and radical in nature. In fact, the bolded passages above won rapturous applause from the 95% plus European-American crowd that attended that speech.

Thus, as you shall soon see--and are seeing increase daily--the Arizona heresy will be stamped out quite effectively.

As the U.S., dizzy with success, marches triumphantly along to our new and destined future.


  1. Jourdan, I edited your excellent post to add the "Read More" feature to give us a bit more room for everyone else on the front page.

    Hope you don't mind.

  2. Jourdan, see here for a very simple how-to on the "Read more..." feature.

    It's real simple.

    Scroll around on the page to see other tricks we've come up with.

  3. "Scroll around on the page to see other tricks Lewy's come up with."

    He's also very modest :0)

  4. Thank you for the thoughtful post, Jourdan.

    "Immigration is thus to the USG what CA was to the Soviet Union: an ideological position that cannot be changed, cannot be argued and cannot be allowed to be questioned."

    You hit the nail on the head. Anyone who questions our immigration policies is instantly labeled a racist scumbag.

  5. There is an interview with J D Hayworth currently up at PJTV, where he says that Border Patrol Agents have him told that, beginning in 1989, they were instructed to allow anyone they caught crossing from Mexico to proceed, so long as the crosser said the word 'Amnesty' or 'amnestia'.

  6. Jourdan, I haven't missed your post....just been busy and want to re-read it carefully before I comment. I tend to agree with everything on the first read. Which is unusual for me.

    Just from the tone of your words, I'm guessing your new arrangements are satisfying and pleasing to you. I'm very happy it wall worked out for the best. Dang! Austria!